Re: QUESTION: LC_COLLATE minimal requirements?

[Harshula <harshula at gmail dot com>]

Hi Ulrich,

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 11:04 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:

> >> Q1) Is it a requirement to use the collating-symbol keyword to define
> >> ALL symbols? If not, is this patch sufficient and acceptable for glibc?
> >> http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/sinhala/patches/iso14651_t1_common-glibc.patch?root=sinhala&view=log
> 
> It's better to follow the example of the other languages.  This results
> in better tables.  And it's trivial.  Just use
> 
>    <U0DF4>   <U0DF4>;<BAS>;<MIN>;IGNORE
> 
> etc

Thanks, I've made the changes.

Patch:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/sinhala/patches/iso14651_t1_common-glibc.patch?root=sinhala&view=log

Testcase:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/sinhala/patches/mysql-data-sinhala.txt?root=sinhala&view=log

Correct output from 'sort':
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/sinhala/patches/glibc-collation-correct.txt?root=sinhala&view=log


> >> Q3) I couldn't find any documentation on:
> >>
> >> translit_start
> >> include  "translit_combining";""
> >> translit_end
> 
> Just look at the files.  There is no magic.  It's a 1:N mapping.

The original question was "Does translit_start have an affect on
LC_COLLATE?"

translit_combining file contains this comment:
-----------------------------------------------
% Transliterations that remove all combining characters (accents,
% pronounciation marks, etc.).
% Generated from UnicodeData.txt.
-----------------------------------------------

Should this be interpreted as always converting to the composed form?

Thanks,
#